![]() So you mean PCs of "short" races not being able to use big weapons is not trying to simulate reality? There are a lot of exceptions, but there are reasonable explanations for them given the assumptions of the way the 3.5 D&D universe works. Every creature follows the same rules for hit dice, skills, feats, saving throws, etc. Magic works basically the same for everyone, whether it is spell-like abilities or the magic of a spellcasting classs. You define simulationist as stimulating a genre, while others, me included, mean simualting how something would happen in the real world. ![]() Everything else is decided by the story and characterization.WotC's Nightmare wrote: I think that's where the problem is. There is a small amount of simulation in the combat rules, as the mechanics and dice model the relative in-world abilities of characters and the results adhered to, for the most part. Bad guys show up at dramatically aporopriate times, decisions are made based on what would be cool. The game is planned out to be an action adventure with action scenes that will happen at predetermined times and places. Simulation doesn't decide much about what happens. I will decide on the fly what is in the world, sometimes without dice, if I hadn't prepared it beforehand, and I will make other judgement calls sometimes without the dice, and that is why it is not a level 9 or 10 simulation.įeng Shui, on the other hand, is like a 1 or 2 on the scale, almost all narrative. The players act through their characters to interact with the world, there are no rules which allow abstract narrative control, like fate points or rerolls or abilities that let the player add something to the scenery or the world apart from what their character can do. I build a world and populate it with places and people, and then use the rules and dice to decide how just about everything happens. I would run AD&D or B/X at a 8 on the simulation scale. The reaction of monsters and NPCs is determined by the needs of a story. The game world simulation does not decide what the weather is, the DM decides in order to give a certain atmosphere or add a certain challenge. ![]() If the rules and dice rolls are routinely over ruled in order to further a story or give the characters certain dramatic arcs, narrative is being favored over simulation. You accept the results of the dice as the mechanic that determines what happens. What makes it simulation and not narrative is that the results are determined by factors linked to the character's abilities and how they would interact with the game world, not on the needs of story or characterization. The die roll tells us the result of a fighting exchange, better fighters have better chance of landing blows and killing enemies. Higher level of abstraction can give you simpler rules that are still simulationist.ĭ&D combat is abstract, the rules don't detail every movement a character makes and every possible technique or use of a weapon. If the rules stop someone from doing something plausible or that was actually done, like stabbing with a longsword or with the spear-point on a halberd, they need fixed, but at the same time I don't want a million fiddly bits and modifiers to memorize.Yes, simulation doesn't necessarily equate to rules complexity. My answer is pretty much "AD&D 2e with on-the-fly houserules to patch anything blatantly verisimilitude-breaking (verisimilitude does not necessarily mean strict realism, otherwise nobody could cast Fireball) whenever it comes up and few-to-no splatbooks used." Wherever that falls on the spectrum.ĥe with revamped/homebrew weapons table, variant 2e-style initiative, lingering wounds, and tougher healing is also great.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |